Iam a Michael Crichton fan. I read his books time and again. I never cease to wonder how Crichton does his highly extensive research and blends fact with fiction so smoothly that, at the end of every one of his preposterous situations, one still ends up with the thought that someday this will all be true. Some of his works leave a very uncomfortable feeling nagging what if ? Jurassic Park, Lost World, Prey are samples of this kind. Crichton is a modern day Jules Verne. I have been reading his latest State of Fear with considerable interest. The stroyline is revolutionary attacking the envrionmentalists as hyprocrites and ill-informed people who have no clear picture of the changes around the world.
But this blog is not a review of his work. The following lines in the novel made me pause:
...Her intentions may be good, but her information is bad. A prescription for disaster ..
I put down the book and started to think. This line is absolutely true. Many of us always seem to know a lot of stuff in lots of areas. We appear to know what is better, what is right, how to get it done, where things go wrong, the truth, the intentions, the correct plan - about almost everything. We feel strongly about a lot of stuff - including current day politics, yesteryear strategies, international policies, evils of communism, treaties, coalitions. We have a complete list of things to do and that should not be done for the betterment of the country, for the improvement of the economy. We know how better to run a company, how to unite people, what is wrong in the current setup, how to make a project successful etc etc.,
Our intentions are good. No doubt. All of us want betterment. But do we know/digest the facts necessary ? We get most of our facts from media which is already doctored to a large extent. We rely on hearsays, blogs, gossips & rumors for a bunch of information. We find it tough to even segregate the right information from wrong/influenced ones. We are crippled in making a good independent judgment at the end of the day. Good intentions with bad information lead to crisis.
And we collate and precipitate such informtion into our heads, our friends, our blogs.
On a similar note, one can remember the HR guiding principles of Jack Welch. Welch classified his people into 4 groups, placing each in one quadrant. The axes were belief in values (of the company) and delivery.
First Quadrant : +ve Values & +ve delivery
Second Quadrant : +ve Values & -ve delivery
Third Quadrant : -ve Values & +ve delivery
Fourth Quadrant : -ve Values & -ve delivery
In this classification, people of the First Quad were the FastTrackers - future leaders. The Second & Fourth Quadrans needed trainings and warnings. The most dangerous are the Third quadrant. These are people who have delivered and are successful but dont believe in the values of the organization. They have honorable intentions and they deliver well; but this is only in a shortlived glory. On a longer run, these people end inflicting great losses - because they dont share the values, guiding principles and vision of the company.
So do the majority fall into the third category ? Is this what differentiates commonline thinkers and influencing leaders ? Is this why inspite of having so many well educated and socially conscious citizens, we still have so many problems with no satisfying solutions ? While we always have a medicine in hand for every issue on how it could have been done better, is it well analyzed after an independent assessment ? Or are we merely echoing a combination of our mindsets and a predefined review columns ?
The character from State of Fear continues saying ..Caring is irrelevant. Desire to do good is irrelevant. All that counts is knowledge and results...
Are we just Dilberts who do nothing but sarcastically record our cubicle thoughts ?
Chao.
But this blog is not a review of his work. The following lines in the novel made me pause:
...Her intentions may be good, but her information is bad. A prescription for disaster ..
I put down the book and started to think. This line is absolutely true. Many of us always seem to know a lot of stuff in lots of areas. We appear to know what is better, what is right, how to get it done, where things go wrong, the truth, the intentions, the correct plan - about almost everything. We feel strongly about a lot of stuff - including current day politics, yesteryear strategies, international policies, evils of communism, treaties, coalitions. We have a complete list of things to do and that should not be done for the betterment of the country, for the improvement of the economy. We know how better to run a company, how to unite people, what is wrong in the current setup, how to make a project successful etc etc.,
Our intentions are good. No doubt. All of us want betterment. But do we know/digest the facts necessary ? We get most of our facts from media which is already doctored to a large extent. We rely on hearsays, blogs, gossips & rumors for a bunch of information. We find it tough to even segregate the right information from wrong/influenced ones. We are crippled in making a good independent judgment at the end of the day. Good intentions with bad information lead to crisis.
And we collate and precipitate such informtion into our heads, our friends, our blogs.
On a similar note, one can remember the HR guiding principles of Jack Welch. Welch classified his people into 4 groups, placing each in one quadrant. The axes were belief in values (of the company) and delivery.
First Quadrant : +ve Values & +ve delivery
Second Quadrant : +ve Values & -ve delivery
Third Quadrant : -ve Values & +ve delivery
Fourth Quadrant : -ve Values & -ve delivery
In this classification, people of the First Quad were the FastTrackers - future leaders. The Second & Fourth Quadrans needed trainings and warnings. The most dangerous are the Third quadrant. These are people who have delivered and are successful but dont believe in the values of the organization. They have honorable intentions and they deliver well; but this is only in a shortlived glory. On a longer run, these people end inflicting great losses - because they dont share the values, guiding principles and vision of the company.
So do the majority fall into the third category ? Is this what differentiates commonline thinkers and influencing leaders ? Is this why inspite of having so many well educated and socially conscious citizens, we still have so many problems with no satisfying solutions ? While we always have a medicine in hand for every issue on how it could have been done better, is it well analyzed after an independent assessment ? Or are we merely echoing a combination of our mindsets and a predefined review columns ?
The character from State of Fear continues saying ..Caring is irrelevant. Desire to do good is irrelevant. All that counts is knowledge and results...
Are we just Dilberts who do nothing but sarcastically record our cubicle thoughts ?
Chao.
No comments:
Post a Comment